LABOUR’S OBJECTIVE

Dominion, Volume 31, Issue 190, 10 May 1938, Page 17

LABOUR’S OBJECTIVE

I Reasons For Co-operation ! With Government | -MOST LOGICAL COURSE” I Tlie importance of the result oi the ! local body elections to Labour in view i of the general election in six months time wits stressed by tlie Labour mayoral candidate, Mr. C.’il. Chapman, when speaking at: Minimal* last night. “Labour candidates for tlie local bodies are not tlie only ones who have an eye on Wednesday's polling as a weapon to use for tlie general election, said Mr. Chapman. The citizens’ ticket was also straining its utmost to win, believing that such a victory would mean much when the country gave its verdict on who was to control tlie country’s affairs. Tlie Labour Party bad chosen ns its keynote for this election co-operation with the Government, said Air. Chapman. He felt that all citizens would agree that no better keynote could lie sounded, because they had' experienced tlie benefits, Io lie derived from having a Labour Government in office. There were more work, more wages, more prosperity, and more happiness. That was Labour's record ot achievement. It was going further. It was investigating proposals which when placed on tlie Statute Hook would give security to the people. No matter what position a person helil. there was at present, anil had been in Hie past, always a feeling that when one was past active working years lie would become the victim -h penury and want. Tile Labour Government intended to legislate to remove that feeling of insecurity and replace it with one of security, so that when people reached the end of their working days they would be assured of comfort and security. The Government had improved the position of elderly persons by increasing pensions ami had made tlie allowable income higher. All this beneficial legislation had been introduced with tlie object of .raising tlie living standards of the people. “We as candidates for tlie local bodies feel that the most logical course to follow is to co-operate with such a beneficent Government,” said Mr. Chapman. How could tlie council co-operate? There were several methods. It could assist the Government’s ideal by increasing wages of its employees and making then* conditions better. That was not tlie policy of the anti-Labour forces.. They viewed wages in community undertakings just as in their own businesses. They were the people who believed that if an employee lost time on account of wet: weather, lie should also lose pay. Labour had altered that. The council could also co-operate with the Government

in an effort to overcome the housing shortage. Residents of Aliramar. many of whom had equities in their own homes, might not be particularly affected, but it tliev were (sympathetic witli those who were suffering due to tlie deplorable conditions revealed by the bousing shortage, then they would support Labour in its endeavours to rectify the, position. This was the most: important issue facing the electors, contended Mr. Chapman. The Government was offering cheap money lor housing, and Labour proposed to accept this. It was not suggested that the council should set up a housing department, but that with tlie money secured from the Government, contracts could be let to small building contractors and tlie houses let to the people. Labour believed in private enterprise co-operating with the Government. but it maintained that private enterprise could not: cope itself with tlie problem of housing. Exactly the same position had occurred in connection with the citv milk supply. Private enterprise had fallen down in this, and under municipal control tlie city had received a service second to none These were some of tlie reasons why Labour should lie returned to office, concluded Mr. Chapman. ' Labour stood tor the well'll re of tin* people as a whole, and not for any particular section of the community. Public Ownership. Mr. A. Parlane said that, despite the fact that tlie Labour Party had not had u majority in tlie past on the city council, the city tramways and its electricity and milk supplies were publicly owned. The reason was that the big majority ot tlie citizens were of tin; opinion that they could be better served by spcinlly-owned than by privately-owned utilities. AA'lien the lute lion, Hislop had introduced his proposal to municipalise the city S electricity supply lie had the whole-heart-ed support of the Labour Party, but had been opposed by the citizens' committee, which had predicted that nil sorts of dire results would follow. Bui results had proved the opposite. That bad been one of the finest pieces of business the city hud ever transacted, and the citizens of AVellington were to-day receiving their electric current at the lowest rates in New Zealand, large reserves hud been built up, and large sums had been transferred from tlie profit of tlie department to the general fund of the council. To be consistent, citizens’ committee candidates who were opposed to municipal ownership should advocate handing over these services t 0 private enterprise, but they dare not. , Mr. R. McKeen. M.P.. city council and harbour board candidate, advocated for the outlying suburbs the installation of trolly bitses as the most economic and the most comfortable system of transport. Tliofjc districts* should be given transport facilities to which they were justly entitled. Mr. AlcKeen also drew attention to the shortage of reserves likely to occur

when the exhibition buildings were erected. Every advantage should be taken of the labour available and in co-operat-ing with the Government to create more reserves. Cost of Hospital Scheme. Mr. A. W. Croskery said that a great deal of nonsense had been talked by antiLabour candidates about the cost of the new hospital. At his request the secretary of the board had prepared a statement, which could not be contradicted, as to exactly how much niore a year in rates ratepayers would have to pay. On a section valued at £250, the extra cost would be 4/8 a year, and on a section valued at £5OO 9/8 a year. This was surely not a great deal if people wanted a modern hospital where they could receive the best treatment, and where there would be no overcrowding. On a section valued at £lOOO the extra rates would be 18/8 a year. Where was all the noise coming from about the scheme? It was coming from the owners of big properties and their representatives, who could well afford to pay. What were the Citizens' candidates fighting for but for the interests of the big land owners. They did not want the people as a whole to receive what they were entitled to, but sought to protect big land owners. Could this be termed serving the interests of all the people, as the Citizens’ candidates claimed? Air. Croskery said the figures he had quoted could easily be secured. If the ratepayers just checked them over they could come to one conclusion only.. There was nothing wrong with the building scheme. It was not going to cost the people any more than they could comfortably afford. Labour had made sure of that, and for that reason intended going ahead with it. 1 Work on the Waterfront.

Speaking at the Mission Hall, Aro Street, Mr. J. Roberts, candidate for the harbour board, stated in reply to Mr. A. Fletcher and others, that he was pleased to have drawn the fire of the citizens’ candidates. It appeared to him that Mr. Fletcher could not resist the temptation of joining in condemnation of the workers who Iqitded and discharged vessels at the port of Wellington. The employers of waterside labour had carried on a propaganda campaign against the waterside workers for some time past.

Mr. Roberts said he had no doubt that Mr. Fletcher sjwke for the whole of the citizens’ candidates for the harbour board ; indeed, for the whole of the “Tory ticket,” but if he had investigated conditions on the waterfront during the time he was the late Government’s appointee on the harbour board he would have found out that the real difficulty was lack of organisation, and industrial drift on the part of the employers, and in some cases downright incompetency in the work of making arrangements for the handling of cargo to and from vessels. In some cases cargo had been handled two and even three times. It seemed to be nobody’s business to organise some jobs. If Mr. Fletcher and his friends were half as insistent on good organisation as they were on the matter of propaganda against Labour, ships would have been loaded and discharged far more efficiently. Instead of seeking the co-operation of Ihe men who, loaded and discharged vessels and of the harbour board employees, abuse had been hurled at them in and out of Parliament and in and out of season. That was the policy adopted instead of investigating the trouble or obtaining the men’s point of view. Minor troubles that had occurred on the waterfront for months past had been magnified solely for the purffiise of political propaganda. If there hpd been a majority of Labour members on the harbour board, a very different policy would have been followed. Instead of abuse and political propaganda, the policy would have been to obtain the co-oneration of all waterfront workers. which would have resulted in more efficiency.